Evaluation of Radiology Reports by the Emergency Department Clinical Providers: A Message to Radiologists

Abstract

Objectives: This study is an evaluation of the emergency department (ED) satisfaction with the current radiologic reporting system used at a major Northeastern academic medical center. The radiology reports are the main form of communication and usually the final product of any radiological investigation delivered to clinicians. The aim of this study was to improve current radiology reporting practices and to better tailor reports to match the needs and expectations of ED clinicians. Methods: A 9-question online survey was sent to ED residents, fellows, faculty, and nurse practitioners/advanced practice providers at a major Northeastern academic medical center in the United States. For the open-ended section, coding and emergent theme categorization was conducted for quantification of responses. The survey was designed to evaluate the attitudes toward the structure, style, form, and wording used in reports. Results: The response rate was 48.6% (68/140). The ED respondents were generally satisfied with radiology reports, their language, vocabulary, and clarity. They preferred the impression section to be before the findings in simple examinations and to stratify the reports according to emergency status for complex examinations. They did not like extended differential, hedge terms, and delayed reporting. Additionally, ED respondents recommended focused, fast reporting with considerable changes toward a more standardized report. Conclusions: This evaluation delivered a list of actionable recommendations. The top recommendation is to standardize reporting structure, style, and lexicon, in addition to being focused, timely, and brief.

CARJ 2021: Year in Review

“…A survey was performed of emergency department staff, including physicians, trainees, and allied health professionals, to assess perception of radiology interpretations. 13 Ten recommendations were provided to improve the reception of radiology reports. The top recommendation was the use of standardized reporting structure and lexicon.…”

“…Importantly, 34% of users stated they only read the impression, therefore it seems prudent to ensure that findings requiring the attention of the end-user are stated in the impression. 13 Privacy With new technologies come new challenges. We are currently in an era of rapid growth in the application of artificial intelligence.…”

“…Importantly, 34% of users stated they only read the impression, therefore it seems prudent to ensure that findings requiring the attention of the end-user are stated in the impression. 13…”

Diagnostic Errors in Neuroradiology: A Message to Emergency Radiologists and Trainees

“…4,5 Suboptimal or inappropriate report structure, lexicon, use of hedge terms and failed communication are known errors that have been reported negatively by clinicians but not related to misdiagnosis/misinterpretation. 6…”

“…4,5 Suboptimal or inappropriate report structure, lexicon, use of hedge terms and failed communication are known errors that have been reported negatively by clinicians but not related to misdiagnosis/misinterpretation. 6 Kundel et al further classified the aforementioned observertype error into scanning (not fixating attention on the area of the lesion), recognition (fixating on the area yet not recognizing the lesion) and decision-making (incorrect interpretation of a detected lesion). The latter accounted for 45% of all observer-type errors.…”